Ok i cant answer all of your replies because i dont have the time or to be more honest the will because no matter what i say you will tightly cling on to what you believe and arent open to new thoughts or ideas.
Anyways for the sake of discussion i will try my best to answer as many of your questions as possible.
Its funny how when you used the wikipedia link you decided to just quote some of the parts. well let me quote the other parts as well.
In February 2009, the Gujarat High court agreed with the POTA panel that there was no evidence of a conspiracy[11].
A commission set up by the Railways ministry reported in 2005 that the fire was almost certainly an accident[7][8]
Your very own parliment says that there was no conspiracy then why are you so keen to blame it on the muslims. And ok even if for the sake of argument i was to agree with your opinion that it was the muslims who started it does that still justify massacering so many people? thats like kids fighting and saying he, started it! no he started it, NO he started it!
As for Aurangzeb il tell you no humans perfect and if he did take down temples without any reason then he wasnt following Islam but why are you ignoring the fact that he had more Hindu Mansabdars than Akbar. Obviously he trusted them in order to give them one of the highest posts in the Empire.
It is Josephs post however which i find most amusing. Just look at these maps mate.
Resultat av Googles bildsökning efter http://photo.pds.org:5005/pl/content/na/pc/lg/lr003910.gif
Resultat av Googles bildsökning efter http://www.indiana.edu/~isp/cd_rom/images/map/image/mughal.jpg
Il agree with your statement that no muslim ruler ruled whole of India but all that they didnt rule was the southern tip of India as for your statement "All the muslim king's rule was confined to some cities in north India,"
. I hope you know what i mean after having looked at these maps.
6." Also, the invaders came to India kills people, looted there and run away to their own country"
I think you must be talking about the Goras here!! As far as i know Delhi lies pretty much in India so yes Delhi being the capital of the Mughal Empire was where the Mughal army went after war. To their own country that is. Yes earlier kings such as Mahmud Ghaznavi had come to India only to plunder but later on the muslims adopted Hindustan as their home.
And then finally all of you seem to imply how the Hindus didnt convert due to their great devotion to their religion which i am not doubting honestly. I respect hindus and for your information have many hindu friends. But you have to accept the fact that there were no massive forced conversion. As said yes their may have been individual cases but can you tell me anywhere , where massive forced conversion took place??? no you cant!
Muslims have throughout their history been the more merciful ones. Look at Spain, Al Andalus, for 500 hundred years muslims ruled there and this period is known as the "Golden age of Judaism" in Europe. Whilst Jews were oppressed in more or less all Christian countries, muslims tolerated them. Then in 1492 the last Muslim kingdom falls and what do the Christians do? force all the muslims and jews to convert to christianity or run away and where did all of them go to ? they went to Morroco and the Ottoman EMpire, why? becuase they were tolerated there.
I shouldnt even have to mention men like Salah uddin(Saladin) who when he recaptured Jerusalem didnt touch a single Christian whilst these very Crusaders had massacred all the Jews and Muslims of Jerusalem when they had captured it. The massacre was so horrible that the blood of the murdered came up to the knees!!
Hope i answered your questions and now i have to go back to my studies